Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jficquette
ParticipantCA Renter,
Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.
Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.
John
ParticipantCA Renter,
Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.
Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.
John
ParticipantCA Renter,
Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.
Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.
John
ParticipantCA Renter,
Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.
Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.
John
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.
(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)
Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?
Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:
It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)
With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.
Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.
Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?[/quote]
Probably more like 100+ in age. Any one retiring today at 55 and alive at 85 will not have to deal with cancer, heart disease or diabetes.
They should cap the amount they pay out but they can’t? Why? because if they did everyone would see how much these people are going to make. Now it’s nebulous and people can’t focus on it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.
(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)
Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?
Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:
It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)
With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.
Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.
Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?[/quote]
Probably more like 100+ in age. Any one retiring today at 55 and alive at 85 will not have to deal with cancer, heart disease or diabetes.
They should cap the amount they pay out but they can’t? Why? because if they did everyone would see how much these people are going to make. Now it’s nebulous and people can’t focus on it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.
(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)
Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?
Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:
It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)
With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.
Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.
Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?[/quote]
Probably more like 100+ in age. Any one retiring today at 55 and alive at 85 will not have to deal with cancer, heart disease or diabetes.
They should cap the amount they pay out but they can’t? Why? because if they did everyone would see how much these people are going to make. Now it’s nebulous and people can’t focus on it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.
(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)
Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?
Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:
It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)
With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.
Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.
Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?[/quote]
Probably more like 100+ in age. Any one retiring today at 55 and alive at 85 will not have to deal with cancer, heart disease or diabetes.
They should cap the amount they pay out but they can’t? Why? because if they did everyone would see how much these people are going to make. Now it’s nebulous and people can’t focus on it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.
(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)
Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?
Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:
It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)
With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.
Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.
Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?[/quote]
Probably more like 100+ in age. Any one retiring today at 55 and alive at 85 will not have to deal with cancer, heart disease or diabetes.
They should cap the amount they pay out but they can’t? Why? because if they did everyone would see how much these people are going to make. Now it’s nebulous and people can’t focus on it.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?
Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?
Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?
Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?
Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?
Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?
-
AuthorPosts
